How large are atoms compared to DNA or RNA? I can't seem to figure that out. I thought they'd be visible because DNA and RNA are so damn tiny, but yeah, I can't see them. So how big are they?
@iloveyou75204 i love you too. cells, have holes in them, yes, in their "skin" so to speak, they are portals that only allow certain molecules through depending on the cells needs.
@colinwar THose holes described in the "the wonders of the tiny cells" vid are actualyl holes of the nucleus which regonize precisely what enters and exits the nucleus(the only one containing the vital DNA info to the cell). A nucleus is inside each cell contains that important DNA info which tells the cell everything it can do, it can become etc... the holes communicate its commans to the rest of the cell, The cell itslef contains holes for stuff to enter and exit, in the same way u have mouth
I noticed an error here. The mRNA that exists the nucleus was supposed to attach onto the smaller ribosomal unit first but the animation shows it clinging onto the larger ribosomal unit andthe smaller one closing the lid which is the opposite of reality.
To the evolution doubters: you constantly make the same mistake in your criticism, and that is your assumption that fully-functioning organisms come into existence all at once by sheer chance. This is WRONG: evolution began with a single chemical with the ability to reproduce itself. This one feature happened by chance, but with reasonable odds. Once it was there, though, random variations followed by natural selection produced ever more complex organisms that did NOT evolve all at once!
Yep! And there's a lot of them out there...but they think its us who are the fools! They are all in denial, because they cannot bear to be accountable to a living God, they wilfully refute.
@Jesuisking What makes you believe God exists? Is it just a reason to explain the unexplainable? I don't think people are in "denial." I think people study these things so they can provide a better understanding to treat illnesses that cause suffering around the world.
Did God create man? Pathogens, hundreds of Viruses, e coli bacteria, streptococcus. small pox, chicken pox, aids, polio, parasites, measles, mumps etc. You name it. THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE. No God would create such things. Evolution is the creator of man. Don't believe me,. check out the teeth sequence in monkeys and chimps. Funny how it only matches humans. Must be the same ancestor. Or God gave us the same 2123 teeth.
@lewjen if we didnt have diseases there would be way to many people living we would over populate havent u ever heard of population control? why do u think ciggerets are legal
It's a shame whoever animated the video made the movements look so smooth and purposeful, instead of being rapidly jostled about by Brownian motion until they hit a suitable substrate. Then maybe we wouldn't have so many people crying "GOD DONE IT"
I hope nobody thinks this is intelligent design? Or God created. It is evolution and chemical attraction. It is not random or chance. No Biologist or Scientist ever state this. It is a misconception brought about by people who have no idea. But lets say a super intelligent being designed this. If this creator was so brilliant, so intelligent, then why not leave evidence of himself? Stupid bibles don't count. They are all man written and unsubstantiated.
Could this be the evidence that is left? I am no scientist nor a religious type, but it seems to me to be too darn complicated for anything else but some type of intelligent design. Just saying....
@Judobigdog Actually to you and me its complicated. to a molecular scientist its not. see atp synthase. Flagellum bacteria and e coli bacteria. It may appear designed but that is appearance only. In fact the whole universe appears designed, yet creation is happening in cosmology as we speak. The question that I think we should be asking is why is this all happening? We know its driven by energy, electrical fields, matter, atoms molecules. etc But why?????????
The atomic bomb is complicated mathematics, physics, material and science formulae. To Einstein it is not complicated. If there was a designer of Earth out of billions of galaxy's and so far only earth is habitable, seems a waste of space just for us? Why not 2 or 3 earths. Why design only one?
@lewjen He did leave evidence of himself. Look around. Look at the beauty and complexity and fragility of nature. That's enough evidence for me. You can believe what you want, but IMO that's ample evidence. Science is magnificent, isn't it?
@mechael Ahh, sorry don't think so. I suggest you read Bertrand Russell, Charles Darwin Origins of Evolution, Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, The Evidence for mankind, Christopher Hitchens and 1000's of Scientific Reviews. Not one bible is substantiated or credible for that matter. Point me to where it has been tested and I'll prove you incorrect. The source is very important and its author. The bible is man made in man's mind. It doesn't even compete with Roman Records, Egyptian records, etc
Unfortunately you're blinded by your presupposition that you can't see the clear evidence for yourself. You don't have to bring up all the books if you can think for yourself. Just look at the evidences. I can also bring up 1000s of books, websites, and scientific reviews supporting intelligent design if you want.
If you understand science, you'll know it has its limits. It is also a man-made discipline of knowledge.
Btw, many has attempted, but no one can proof the bible incorrect.
@mechael== Btw, many has attempted, but no one can proof the bible incorrect=
Btw. nobody has ever proven " Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves ' incorrect. The bible, the O.T. is the greatest accumulation of nonsense ever assembled by man.
This is chance. To believe this is not Divine Design is the ultimate insanity. It is like saying the laptop i am writing this on just appeared out of nowhere.
@Bruce99100 And to say we were created by one god is to say that laptop was created entirely by a single person's self-discovered knowledge. Just as a laptop is a consequence of accumulated discoveries over thousands of years of human existence, so too is the human cell's design a consequence of accumulated discoveries over billions of years of cell existence. (Also keep in mind that cell mutation is much more rapid than our own, and their lineage is horizontal as well as vertical.)
@mechael No, the cell made discoveries in creating itself. If anything works, it sticks around. The effect is compounding. Put that on the scale of an immensely long period of time and the result is drastic.
technology's so nice. It's getting easier to explain and teach such cellular mechanisms. Imagine, maybe some decades before, everyone was only explaining this with posters and 2d animation.
You then think that creation was performed by a computer? That is just ... amazing.
"ID proponents think that a greatly superior intelligence to our own must be required."
Great. So go think it. Why do you need to get everyone else to believe it too? Surely your computer doesn't really care if scientists "waste their time" looking into what nature can do on her own, does it? Or has it lead you to feel a need to enforce this cargo cult on everyone else? Would you be here if it didn't?
I agree I want truth! I do believe in ID but try not turn from possible truth. I do know that amongst atheists peers that Macro evolution is NOT a Truth. I have no prob w/ micro evo. Also, Abiogensis- athiests will use to try and prove origins. Where did that material come from? No evidence in that either.
Ahhh, come on, Candy. You just want to be lied to, but softly. But you already know the ID line, so what's your point in searching for "truth"? (Shaping up to be a geometry pun there.)
ID is creationism in a pseudo-scientific, legally whitewashed (well, sort of, before Dover), brilliantly word-smithed sort of way. If that sort of flash and boom appeals, truth doesn't enter into it, nor hard work nor even intelligence. Now, there's a conundrum for you.
this video is superb. your Creationist lies are what burns .......... but the fire is fading as education pushes you GOD freaks ever into the shrinking gloom of history ......... one day your grandchildren will laugh...........
@2artemis2: Why do you say chance? It's chemistry. It's built by evolution, which has it's random parts but is not at all a random process. If that's what they're telling you, they're wrong.
Note: Name calling is the mark of the wuss. If you have an argument that's worth a damn, you don't need the names and the insults.
Life sometimes sucks, but Sunday mornings are great!
Evolution can't happen until there's at least a "simple" (as simple as the cell in this video) organism to mutate. And those first "simple" organisms that would have had to develop by complete chance (yes, complete chance. Your handy mutations don't happen yet) would have to (by chance) create the ridiculously efficient digital coding and information mechanism called DNA that is hundreds of times more efficient than any of today's most advanced computer software. (out of a soup of chemicals)
Why do you say they had to develop by chance? There are theories that begin to cover that part of the story, and while not yet as robust as evolution, they are improving, and will with little doubt lead to lab experiments that will show that the mechanisms work. Mutations happen at any point where heredity is passed down, even if it is by budding rather than sex. Mono-cellular life had 3 billion years to work out that efficient code based in DNA. I don't get this efficiency thing you have...
...with software; the DNA code is about 70% efficient, the best that can be done if you want to build protein with 22 amino acids and a stop code, and not use something like Huffman variable-length encoding. Software can and does use Huffman encoding and therefore can do the same task with 100% efficiency.
How else could it happen? By an intelligent designer? There's either a designer, or it happened by accident. It's simple as that. Most scientists do not try to claim that abiogensis didn't happen by chance, because they know it would have to. And more and more scientists are looking at the complex digital information in the DNA molecule which is REQUIRED for the construction of EVERY STRUCTURE IN THE BODY and scratching their heads.
(cont.) For example, William Dembski was a strong supporter of evolutionary theory, and even formed an idea about the origin of life called biochemical predestination. The theory basically was that amino acids could link together to form chains, and then the natural attractions between the different amino acids would curl the chain into a functional protein. Later it was discovered that the information contained in DNA was required to place acids in the specified order. (cont.)
It was Professor Dean Kenyon who wrote "Biochemical Predestination" and was driven by the evidence to ID. Have you seen the Google video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"?
You were right about all the important stuff. I just know that Darwinists will nitpick on spelling mistakes, minor errors, and problems with the presentation of an argument, rather than address the substance.
"Revealing the mystery of the bacterial flagellum"
and
"An Imaginary Tour of a Biological Computer"
The first is the website of Professor Keiichi NAMBA who is incharge of a project to reverse engineer the flagellum. There's a fantastic video called "VIDEO: A Rotary NanoMachine", in which Proff Namba explains as an aside, how inferior our own supercomputing is to that of the cell.
We need to forgive the Professor for adding references to "nature" and to "Darwinian evolution", as an rhetorical spin. He does have a job to hold onto!
cont. (3) If ONE amino acid was in the wrong position in chains of sometimes hundreds of amino acids, the protein would be utterly nonfunctional. The incredible odds against the BASIC building blocks of life to form themselves without any intelligent intervention, are so incredibly low.
I'd also be interested to hear where you got the information regarding our software being more efficient than DNA. I DO know that one microscopic molecule of DNA holds enough information to fill 600 books.
The Problem with that line of questioning yastunt, is the assumption that all this stuff just *SNAP* evolved instantaneously.
That's not how evolution works. The structures in the cell grew gradually in complexity and efficiency, just in the same way that creatures on the macro scale change to become more efficient in their environment.
You could take many structures out of the cell, and it would still live, and indeed there are much simpler forms of cells than this. Bacteria for instance.
@L00NGB00W I dont make the assumption of 'snap' evolution - the fossil record just doesnt show a gradual change in complexity - rather there are 'leaps and bounds' in complexity. .in other words the intermediate stages of cells arent in the fossil record. And of course evolutionists assume there was no worldwide flood. A worldwide flood has the qualities needed to 'sort' the fossil record into the way we see it today.
One explanation is that the cretatious period indicated the emergence of a new method to read DNA. The Control Genes.
(I don't know the official term.)
Rather than read DNA explicitly. Creatures at this point began to change the way in which they read DNA. Where one gene has the ability to multiply or negate a a certain genetic trait of another gene.
This accounts in part for the cretatious explosion.
ProfSamuel - "Natural selection cannot work when there is no brain (thought), correct?" - This statement only proves that you have no understanding of evolutionists' arguments. I don't even know what part of your ignorance to discuss first... First of all development is not guided by the brain. The brain controls (to an extent) an organism once they have developed. Development, in the simplest terms, is driven by gene expression and morphogens. I can only hope you are trolling...
Have you seen the video of the human heart first jump-starting from a singe cell all on it's own? Wonder where the evolution goobers are on that one. And that is before the brain is ever developed. Natural selection cannot work when there is no brain (thought), correct?
Amazing video, but with all due respect, I would never underestimate the ability of Darwinists to concoct a just-so account of how this or that function evolved.
Their vivid imaginations allow them to speculate endlessly, while avoiding contact with the facts. Since Darwinist "know" that life evolved via undirected processes, they feel obliged to offer possible naturalistic explanations that (retrospectively) accomadate the evidence
Well stated. Keep in mind our duty is to help educate even them. They may burn us, spit on us and attempt to throw us out. But we are still here. I am sure they would have ran away a log time ago if we did to them what they do to us. I think that spark is what gets some of them thinking if God really is there. For me I just want the truth and a good educated debate. But they do not want that, they lie and hide. Why? Is the truth so painful for them?
The general angst expressed by Darwinists is a sign that some deeply held worldviews are being challenged, and that they don't have an intellectual response. Amazingly, this reaction has come down from the LEADERS of materialistic science to their hardcore atheist groupies.
Few of the fundamentalist Darwinists are ever persuaded by reasoned argument. However, my main targets are the undecided, the truth seekers, the open minded and those intimidated by the elaborate Darwinian facade.
Bildiğiniz üzere organellerin kendine ait akılları ya da öznel hareket kabiliyetleri yoktur. Peki bunca olayı hatasız ve bu denli detaylı olarak nasıl oluyor da gerçekleştirebiliyorlar? Bu soruya ancak ve ancak Allah'ın sistematiğidir demekten başka çaremiz kalmıyor.
this video prooves there iz a god shyt like this cant happen by a chance of ramndom processes did u c how it looked like it had a code system sum kind ov language were everything in the cell looked like it had a job
I cant explain it, but that doesnt mean that i blame God for it.
Water flowing down a river aint considered as "intelligent water", it follows rules and physics. The same can be said about substances and their reactions. Intelligence is hard to define, because time and scale distorts the picture.
so it can go both ways. i cant proove u wrong. because its tru theres alot of things we do not know. i just dont wanna rule out the possability that there can b a god so i keep an opend mind to both ways of thinking. u no wat i mean.
@Swick50187 i think you should shutup and stop commenting on this video. you wouldnt like it if i was going on videos of god and genesis and saying science has proven this and that.
@Swick50187 and by the way the code system is passed down, from one cell to another, to another, to another, to a sperm and an egg, which form life and cells, which pass it on and on and on
I do not think ANYONE of any intelligence could look at a jeep, and think it just evolved by random chance. A simple cell is FAR more complex than a 757, unlike a simple 4x4 jeep.
@mechael The complexity of the cell points directly to evolution. What superintelligent, omnipotent almighty, deity would make the building bloc of life so complex. when being almighty he could have made it very simple.
@olemann77, Well, the jeep took a designer. It is quite obvious that these tiny things could not do their jobs unless they had a designer. Motion had to have an impetus. The DNA are coded with instructions. From where did they get these instructions? 777denny
@olemann77 - what would be miraculous is if the 4x4 was constructed by random molecular collisions over hundreds of billions of years. That seems to explain life, but if I told you that random molecular collisions formed a hula hoop, you'd tell me I was crazy. When you think about it, calling upon hundreds of billions of years and hundreds of trillions of molecular collisions to support your theory, indicates the slim odds of your theory being correct.
@Swick50187 God created the Universe. The Sun is predicted to explode, killing all life of Earth and destroy our solar system. And the Andromeda galaxy is also predicted to collide with our galaxy.
@Swick50187 It took trillions of varying circumstances before it worked this way. Evolution is just something matter does given enough attempts and time, and under the correct conditions.
There is not enough time, since the beginning of universe, for anything by trial and error to put together something so complicated, even if it could "attempt" 100 billion times per microsecond.
It is against law of probability.
It require so much faith to believe the cell is randomly created by chance. It is like someone winning the lottery 10000000 times in a row.
@Swick50187 evolution is also a possibility. (not that i dont beleave in God) Through evolution we could evolved from chickens! (chickens came from monkeys!!
This is the major question; if natural selection is truly unguided by any "supreme being" and is therefore a blind and deaf force, why should it care what helps an organism develop? If this intricate piece of machinery called the cell is truly nothing more than protoplasm struck by lightning, then why does nature help this mistake continue?
the only way nature would work to "help" anything evolve is if it were a personal force. How can unguided matter accomplish this?
Natural selection doesn't care. It's an algorithmic process. If you have a population of entities that can reproduce, have heritability, mutation, and selection pressure, you get evolution. If a mutation occurs that is beneficial, it and its offspring are more likely to survive. If the mutation is deleterious, it probably won't survive long enough to reproduce. If it does survive, its offspring will inherit the handicap. They also have the risk of dying before reproducing. Simple.
An excellent point, julian. You're right- nature doesn't care. So then why do cells evolve at all? Is there some kind of radiation? Are the cells aware that the organism they make up is dying, and so say "Hey, we need to evolve!" and start evolving? (that last one wasn't serious). Let's say evolution did in fact explain it. Let's say evolution was a logical way of telling how the cell came about the way it was. Okay, fine. But it doesn't explain why they started evolving in the first place.
You just asked the exact question that I answered. Let me break it down for you... All B-DNA based organisms have flawed reproduction systems, which occasionally make "mistakes". These mistakes are called mutations. Mutations are quite random, and can affect the attributes of the next generation of organisms. Each organism usually has a unique set of mutations. If a mutation benefits the organism, it has a better chance of surviving. Its offspring will inherit the mutation. CONTD1>
CONTD1> If, on the other hand, the mutation is harmful, then the organism has a reduced chance of surviving. If, out of luck, it does survive anyway, then its offspring will probably inherit the problem, and they also will have a reduced chance of survival. The line of descent will almost surly eventually be selected out because of the flaw, and possibly because of failed attempts at competition with lines of descent that have advantageous mutations. CONTD2>
CONTD2> So, evolution doesn't work on individuals as you erroneously thought. It works on populations. Now, I agree that evolution doesn't explain where life came from. It's not supposed to. That's outside of the theory of evolution's "jurisdiction", if you will. You wouldn't claim that the theory of gravity must be wrong because it doesn't explain where the universe came from. Gravity explains why things fall and orbit. Similarly, evolution explains the diversity and complexity of life. CONTD3>
CONTD3> The most credible scientific hypothesis explaining the origin of life is currently abiogenesis. Directed panspermia is also a potential explanation, however, occam's razor demands that we go with the simplest explanation in the absence of evidence. We have a general idea of what Earth was like in the Hadean and Archean Eons, but we lack the data to determine the specifics. I don't have enough time to go over this at the moment. I recommend watching cdk007's video at /watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg.
I understand the overall theory, but thank you for the recap. Here's the problem- it sounds fine in theory. However, in reality there has yet to be seen any progression of mutation which has proven to be beneficial to the organism or its offspring, either in nature or in a lab. Therefore the theory of evolution is just that- a theory, and one with enough holes to cause many scientists to start doubting its ability to explain life.
"...there has yet to be seen any progression of mutation..."
That statement is false. There have been many cases, some observed naturally and most under laboratory conditions. Viruses and bacteria reproduce so quickly that they evolve at an easily observed rate. But they aren't the only ones, we've seen speciation among multicellular organisms, such as various species of Drosophila, Nereis acuminata, Tragopogon, and Tribolium castaneum, just to name a few.
Yes. We have fossil evidence that strongly suggests that life is a self-replicating divergent pattern, which will slowly mutate into entirely new species, given enough time. Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, Darwinius masillae, and Archaeopteryx are some famous examples. We also have records of speciation under rigorous laboratory conditions. Go to google and look up "observed instances of speciation". There's my evidence. Now, show me the evidence for your alleged creator, or GTFO.
Are you talking about that pre-historic alligator evolutionist are in a uproar about? I went to PA and saw it first hand, there is not even enough bones to even tell what it is. What about the human & dinosaur footprints in Texas? Evidence in Barry Fell book America BC? China visiting America in 1424? First human heart beat before the brain or any other organ is developed? I was taught this evolution junk when I was young then I researched the truth and found evolution is a big fat liar!
And what about the evidence discovered after the famous Monkey Trials? Was only a hog jaw!!! But the courts refused to allow the new evidence back in, since the dumb ruling was already made. Or even the big one about the horse linage, was admitted to being made-up! Yet evolutionist still present that junk today, knowing it was a lie! I am open to anything if there is true facts. Not some drawing, not some bits of bone, but hard core. On a scale of 1 to 10, the creationist are in the lead.
None of the specimens I mentioned were alligators. As far as I know, nothing that has been discovered recently fits your description in the slightest. The paluxy river footprints have failed to endure scientific scrutiny. They are extremely ambiguously formed due to erosion, and neither of the pairs of tracks can be said to resemble human feet without the utilization of selective highlighting. They lack cogency.
Asserting that evolution is JUST a theory is akin to making such an assertion for gravity, or germ theory. Are you intentionally trying to deceive people by confusing the scientific and colloquial definitions of the term "theory"? In science, a theory is an explanation for natural phenomenon(s) which has survived a large amount of scientific scrutiny. Prior to such scrutiny, the explanation is referred to as a "hypothesis".
1. I'm not talking about viruses (which aren't even living things). I'm talking about infinitely more complex organisms, like, say, a fruit fly.
2. Evolution has stood up to large amount of scientific scrutiny? My friend, anyone honestly searching for truth who puts the stick of evolution next to the ruler of science will find it horridly crooked. There has, in fact, been little to no evidence which exclusively applies to evolution, and plenty which blows holes into it.
The Atheist's Riddle: Skeptics Attempt To Solve It.The most famous, passionately argued, longest running debate has been successfully advanced at Infidels,the worlds largest Atheist forum. Information Theory and DNA deal a crushing blow to Atheism,because the laws of physics and chemistry do not account for the existence of information.Verify for yourself the information in DNA is evidence of design in living things.
nvutube7 - you fail at science. Try reading a book which isn't full of fairy tales for once. or try sourcing your information about science from people who actually take the time to understand science. In fact why don't you go and get a dictionary and look up 'science' because you might be surprised at what it really is.
hadr0n, Ad-hominem retorts will not suffice. I cannot do your homework for you. The website I offered is for those who care enough to investigate for themselves. Its not for those who simply want to argue. Im not here to argue or debate. If your satisfied with the conclusions you have come to, thats your choice. Good luck when it's your turn to go through the valley of the shadow of death.
No. You are simply here to poison the waters of objective reality by spreading disinformation and propaganda about subjects YOU don't care to learn about because they disagree with your dogmatic religious world-view.
All programing that humans have ever observed, 100% of the time has been the product of mental processes. We have zero evidence for some other cause for codes. The inference is clear, the programing in DNA was designed. If you disagree, show us a program that didn't come from mental processes.
Of course the naturalist is free to wait for some as of yet unknown process that can procuce coded information. But he does so in the face of zero evidence while at the same time in the face of 100% of human observation that coded information only comes by mental processes. Minds are the only KNOWN cause to date that creates coded information. Sorry, thats just reality. Use all the faith you need to wait for some other cause if you wish. But for now, there is only one available option. Mind.
It's called evolution, and physics, and chemistry, and biology, more specifically cell biology which you wish to speak about with some kind of authority. Your cut-and-paste concept of 'coded-information' belies your wilful ignorance of pretty much all fields of academia except theology.
I pity you. As more and more of the gaps where you could stick your god close you become more and more ignorant and dishonest.
The *operation* of biological processes is explainable by purely natural processes, but the *origin* of codes is not. The problem in the origin of life that science is unable to solve is to explain how information began to govern chemical reactions through the means of a code.Your hard drive is chemistry too, just a big magnet with silicon and copper and plastic.Reading and writing are mechanical processes.But that falls short of explaining the data that is stored on your hard drive,doesnt it?
The God of the gaps type arguments placed God where there was no known cause for the observed effect. The tables have turned on the materialist now. They are the ones reaching for time and chance of the gaps to provide a unknown cause for codes. It is the theist who now has a currently known acting cause for codes, MINDS.
Your reasoning is breif and circular. The source of your 'codes' is clear and supported by a mountain of evidence. It is, as I eluded to earlier, evolutionary biology and the supporting fields of study. It is your clear lack of understanding of the scientific method combinded with your fringe religious prejudices that preclude your bafflingly flawed argument that because you don't understand or accept science that god exists. On all counts a logical non-sequitur. Good night.
>>The source of your 'codes' is clear and supported by a mountain of evidence.
Quite false. People can declare all kinds of abiogenesis explanations to be plausible, but the fact is, none of those experiments are successful and none explains the origin of the genetic code itself. Given the complete absence of any empirical support for a naturalistic cause of the genetic code, it requires assumptions that are empirically unsubstantiated and thus fails to qualify as a scientific statement.
Cutting and pasting from creationist websites with an updated version of the watchmaker argument (which was thourougly debunked even before Darwin was born shows your fear and lack of understanding of science.
Science is not an authority. It is a method of enquiry that requires that ideas are updated and changed in the face of evidence. It is the very antithesis of faith!
The only way you can use the argument that 'codes' can only be created be mental processes is if you deny the evidence.
I noticed you offer not a single piece of evidence of how information came to direct the processes of chemicals through the means of a code. And quite understandably so, there is none at this time. But in your attempt to offer any, make sure to make the distinction between an "explanation" and actual empirical evidence. To date, intelligence is the only known acting cause that produces codes, software and programing.Science has only one rational inference that is based on evidence, intelligence.
google 'Nylon-eating flavobacterium' and 'Bacterial conjugation' if you want to see some of the evidence showing how new information is added through observed unguided evolution. Or do you think that bacteria have brains? More likely you think that there is a big conspiracy in science when the reality is that you'll very rarely find two scientists who agree an pretty much anything.
The evolution of codes does not explain the origin of codes. Algorithms produce more algorithms (information), but that does not explain the original code in the first place.
Derivatives from DNA, the mother code, do not count as examples of codes arising without intelligence. Show us an example of a code that arises without intelligence.
We couldn't posibly know everything about everything otherwise there would be no point in science but you can't just fill the gaps with smaller and smaller gods.
It might just blow your hippy noodle to know that self-replicating RNA has been recently produced in a lab. But of course if you actually followed the science you claim to be such an authority on you would already know that.
Same problem remains for RNA it is a derivative of DNA, the original code. You need to find a code that occurs without intelligence, outside the realm of life.
Learn biology? Biology is not the problem, the problem is the materialistic idealogy that is applied to biology. Looking for the origin of the genetic code in chemistry is like looking for the origin of literature in the chemistry of ink. DNA has coded information, which cannot be reduced to chemistry anymore than literature can.
You can put you faith in science all you want. But I hate to break it to you, science has NO explaination for how information came to direct the processes of chemicals through the means of a code. Thats just the facts. We have only one known acting cause for codes at this time, mental processes. We have only one cause we can rationally make inference to, mental processes can produce codes. Nothing else we know of can. Unless you know of a cause besides intelligence that can make codes?
Intelligence is the only available option we have to choose from at this time. The only cause we KNOW can create codes. One is free to wait for some as of yet unknown way for codes to be made, but he does so in the absence of any evidence for it. We all use faith hadr0n, I just admit my faith, will you?
If trying to explain the past, one shouldnt invent exotic causes of the sort we have NEVER seen in operation, but rather we should invoke causes that are KNOWN to produce the effects in question. Lyels way of saying this, is we should be looking for PRESENTLY acting causes. So the question is, what is the PRESENTLY acting cause of digital code? We know of ONLY one, intelligence! So I am not arguing from ignorance but from my knowledge of causes and effects!
The tables have turned. It is the naturalist who is now reaching for straws (arguing from ignorance) in the attemp of explaining how digital codes can arise without intelligent causation. 100% of human observation empirically shows us minds can produce codes. We have ZERO% evidence they can be the product of anything else. For now, the only rational, logical inference that can be made that is based on the scientific method of induction is design. It is the only "available" alternative we have.
Of course you are free to exersice your own personal faith, that there may be some undiscovered law of chemistry and physics that produces coded information, but you do so with the absence of any evidence. Thats your choice.
Software, instructions, programing and coded information, which is a crucial ingredient to all life, has blindsided all naturalistic interpretations of biology.
Immaterial coded information has to be accounted for in life. Literature cannot be accounted for by examining the chemistry of paper and ink. Literature has a completely different source.
What's your point? You're just backpedaling. Software, instructions, programming and coded inormations are the tools which are used in the naturalistic interpretetion of biology. not its cause.
LIterature is information created by man. A typically rehearsed and childish argument. We don't know the source of intelligence but it dosen't entirely come from our genome it seems as humans have only a fraction of the 'coded information' in their DNA as that of the lowly Amoeba!
The point is, at the heart of all life there is coded information, software, programming etc. Where did it come from?The laws of chemistry can not account for coded information,instructions and the software.
1) DNA contains coded information
2) All coded information we know the origin of came from intelligence
3)Therefore we have 100% inference to design in DNA.
If you disagree,show us an example of codes and software etc., that didn't come from a mind. All you need is one.
Your 'coded information' is an arrogant projection of the concepts that you understand onto those which you clearly do not!
Your logic is circular and flawed. point 2 is wrong. You just believe it to be right because it fits your religious paradigm and wish to deny all evidence to the contrary therefore your cut-and-pastse ID appologetics website conclusion is bullshit and has be thouroughly trashed by many scientists, philosophers and others both here on youtube and in the halls of academia.
That would be circular reasoning. The coded information contained in DNA is the very coded information in question. Is it or is it not the product of intelligence? That is the question, therefore it can't be used as an example of coded information that did not come from intelligence.
Its in inference based on the scientific method of induction.Most scientific laws are based on inference of observations of the past.Science infers the speed of light is constant based on 100% of observations of the past behavior of light. Can we deductively prove it is constant?Nope.We can only infer.The same applies to coded information.Based on 100% of human observation, codes ONLY come by minds.There are no other causes we know of.You are free to wait for some unknown cause to be discovered.
Thanks! Helps alot
Nicegirl1234 1 week ago
How large are atoms compared to DNA or RNA? I can't seem to figure that out. I thought they'd be visible because DNA and RNA are so damn tiny, but yeah, I can't see them. So how big are they?
SlimySnail44 1 month ago
...and ass-hole.
alex3st 2 months ago
god is real
xavi010789 3 months ago
0:00 I hate to sound dumb, but do cell have holes in them?
iloveyou75204 4 months ago
@iloveyou75204 i love you too. cells, have holes in them, yes, in their "skin" so to speak, they are portals that only allow certain molecules through depending on the cells needs.
colinwar 3 months ago
@colinwar Thank you for your message of love, and for the info. :)
iloveyou75204 3 months ago
@colinwar THose holes described in the "the wonders of the tiny cells" vid are actualyl holes of the nucleus which regonize precisely what enters and exits the nucleus(the only one containing the vital DNA info to the cell). A nucleus is inside each cell contains that important DNA info which tells the cell everything it can do, it can become etc... the holes communicate its commans to the rest of the cell, The cell itslef contains holes for stuff to enter and exit, in the same way u have mouth
alex3st 2 months ago
when the video ended i said awww...
KiTTYCHEMiST 4 months ago
this is happening inside me? kool
kidmecha 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Y am I here
nofags13 5 months ago
I noticed an error here. The mRNA that exists the nucleus was supposed to attach onto the smaller ribosomal unit first but the animation shows it clinging onto the larger ribosomal unit andthe smaller one closing the lid which is the opposite of reality.
animalobssessor9 6 months ago
does anyone know the source of this video and if there are any other videos like this?
PVK316 7 months ago
To the evolution doubters: you constantly make the same mistake in your criticism, and that is your assumption that fully-functioning organisms come into existence all at once by sheer chance. This is WRONG: evolution began with a single chemical with the ability to reproduce itself. This one feature happened by chance, but with reasonable odds. Once it was there, though, random variations followed by natural selection produced ever more complex organisms that did NOT evolve all at once!
hznfrst 8 months ago
Those in science cant see the blatantly obvious because they are pseudo intellectual philosophers and not critical thinking engineers .
Science would make HUGE strides in progress if we got rid of the philosophers and put real thinkers in their place
toobsucker 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
W - O - W
ThomasWinkworth 10 months ago
Only a fool would believe that a cell arose by chance.
YHWHisSovereign 1 year ago
@YHWHisSovereign
Yep! And there's a lot of them out there...but they think its us who are the fools! They are all in denial, because they cannot bear to be accountable to a living God, they wilfully refute.
Jesuisking 11 months ago
@Jesuisking What makes you believe God exists? Is it just a reason to explain the unexplainable? I don't think people are in "denial." I think people study these things so they can provide a better understanding to treat illnesses that cause suffering around the world.
holyscythe 10 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign See my earlier post and try to use your brain for once.
hznfrst 8 months ago
omg i've watched the whole thing and its very enlightening! google "unlocking the mysteries of life".
Thanks for posting this!
ilovemyprs 1 year ago
@ilovemyprs Yeah, because promoting "Intelligent Design" is so useful.
zackersquackers 1 year ago
Comment removed
sLIMshadyKP 1 year ago
Did God create man? Pathogens, hundreds of Viruses, e coli bacteria, streptococcus. small pox, chicken pox, aids, polio, parasites, measles, mumps etc. You name it. THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE. No God would create such things. Evolution is the creator of man. Don't believe me,. check out the teeth sequence in monkeys and chimps. Funny how it only matches humans. Must be the same ancestor. Or God gave us the same 2123 teeth.
lewjen 1 year ago
@lewjen if we didnt have diseases there would be way to many people living we would over populate havent u ever heard of population control? why do u think ciggerets are legal
Swick50187 1 year ago
It's a shame whoever animated the video made the movements look so smooth and purposeful, instead of being rapidly jostled about by Brownian motion until they hit a suitable substrate. Then maybe we wouldn't have so many people crying "GOD DONE IT"
Ozarkeree 1 year ago
I have a gazillion galaxies in my body :D
ryuu304 1 year ago
I hope nobody thinks this is intelligent design? Or God created. It is evolution and chemical attraction. It is not random or chance. No Biologist or Scientist ever state this. It is a misconception brought about by people who have no idea. But lets say a super intelligent being designed this. If this creator was so brilliant, so intelligent, then why not leave evidence of himself? Stupid bibles don't count. They are all man written and unsubstantiated.
lewjen 1 year ago
@lewjen
Could this be the evidence that is left? I am no scientist nor a religious type, but it seems to me to be too darn complicated for anything else but some type of intelligent design. Just saying....
Judobigdog 1 year ago
@Judobigdog Actually to you and me its complicated. to a molecular scientist its not. see atp synthase. Flagellum bacteria and e coli bacteria. It may appear designed but that is appearance only. In fact the whole universe appears designed, yet creation is happening in cosmology as we speak. The question that I think we should be asking is why is this all happening? We know its driven by energy, electrical fields, matter, atoms molecules. etc But why?????????
lewjen 1 year ago
@lewjen What do you mean, "why"? Things simply happen, and if they are able to continue existing, they do. No purpose is needed.
Ozarkeree 1 year ago
The atomic bomb is complicated mathematics, physics, material and science formulae. To Einstein it is not complicated. If there was a designer of Earth out of billions of galaxy's and so far only earth is habitable, seems a waste of space just for us? Why not 2 or 3 earths. Why design only one?
lewjen 1 year ago
@lewjen He did leave evidence of himself. Look around. Look at the beauty and complexity and fragility of nature. That's enough evidence for me. You can believe what you want, but IMO that's ample evidence. Science is magnificent, isn't it?
ryuu304 1 year ago
@lewjen
The bible is the most substantiated historical document in human history. Backed up by bibliographical test, internal test and external test.
mechael 1 year ago
@mechael Ahh, sorry don't think so. I suggest you read Bertrand Russell, Charles Darwin Origins of Evolution, Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, The Evidence for mankind, Christopher Hitchens and 1000's of Scientific Reviews. Not one bible is substantiated or credible for that matter. Point me to where it has been tested and I'll prove you incorrect. The source is very important and its author. The bible is man made in man's mind. It doesn't even compete with Roman Records, Egyptian records, etc
lewjen 1 year ago
@lewjen
Unfortunately you're blinded by your presupposition that you can't see the clear evidence for yourself. You don't have to bring up all the books if you can think for yourself. Just look at the evidences. I can also bring up 1000s of books, websites, and scientific reviews supporting intelligent design if you want.
If you understand science, you'll know it has its limits. It is also a man-made discipline of knowledge.
Btw, many has attempted, but no one can proof the bible incorrect.
mechael 1 year ago
@mechael== Btw, many has attempted, but no one can proof the bible incorrect=
Btw. nobody has ever proven " Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves ' incorrect. The bible, the O.T. is the greatest accumulation of nonsense ever assembled by man.
tallliza 1 year ago
@mechael Please refer me to a text that supports intelligent design! Ill demonstrate the holes in it.
lewjen 1 year ago
This is chance. To believe this is not Divine Design is the ultimate insanity. It is like saying the laptop i am writing this on just appeared out of nowhere.
Bruce99100 1 year ago
@Bruce99100 And to say we were created by one god is to say that laptop was created entirely by a single person's self-discovered knowledge. Just as a laptop is a consequence of accumulated discoveries over thousands of years of human existence, so too is the human cell's design a consequence of accumulated discoveries over billions of years of cell existence. (Also keep in mind that cell mutation is much more rapid than our own, and their lineage is horizontal as well as vertical.)
Ozarkeree 1 year ago
@Ozarkeree
So, what's your logic? Discoveries created cell?
mechael 1 year ago
@mechael No, the cell made discoveries in creating itself. If anything works, it sticks around. The effect is compounding. Put that on the scale of an immensely long period of time and the result is drastic.
Ozarkeree 1 year ago
This would make any murderer feel bad!
racin9 1 year ago 10
@racin9 lol, great comment... yes, think of all the reactions and processes that are "killed"
olemann77 1 year ago
the music is terrible
infoluvbuddy 1 year ago
Very interesting and informative. Not to mention amazing! Cute and interesting animations. :)
tall32guy 1 year ago
thank you.....
RiniMom 1 year ago
One machine builds another using a information program .(software0.Space shuttle replicating itself by accident..
levonet33 1 year ago
i have seen parts of this documentary/video but in bits only, how long is the whole thing and what is it called?
padwanbob 1 year ago
This is from the intelligent design movie, Unlocking the meaning of life.
ThermalHD 1 year ago
too fucking cool to see it from this perspective...
unforgiven911 1 year ago
ahhhh i dont get all this science stuff but all i know is dat god is our creator the way the truth and the LIFE.
bribrabra14 1 year ago
hmmm.........lol
xoSNOWDROPox 1 year ago
technology's so nice. It's getting easier to explain and teach such cellular mechanisms. Imagine, maybe some decades before, everyone was only explaining this with posters and 2d animation.
simondeep 2 years ago
The nano technology revealed by this animation is light years ahead of what our intelligent minds have so far been able to design.
We have yet to develop any machine with the capacity for self replication, let alone one that could change and grow.
The computer code that underlies this process must be of unfathomable complexity.
ID proponents think that a greatly superior intelligence to our own must be required.
Darwinists think that no intelligence is what's needed.
IDtaksovr 2 years ago
"ID proponents think that a greatly superior intelligence to our own must be required."
Stop lying. One look at the Discovery Institute's web site exposes your blatantly obvious Christian ideals.
You dont think it is a "superior intelligence" you think it is the god of the Christian bible.
Stop trying to lie to everyone, idiot.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
You then think that creation was performed by a computer? That is just ... amazing.
"ID proponents think that a greatly superior intelligence to our own must be required."
Great. So go think it. Why do you need to get everyone else to believe it too? Surely your computer doesn't really care if scientists "waste their time" looking into what nature can do on her own, does it? Or has it lead you to feel a need to enforce this cargo cult on everyone else? Would you be here if it didn't?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex
By the way, have you read Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell? I think you would find it very informative.
eaglestudios829 1 year ago
I agree I want truth! I do believe in ID but try not turn from possible truth. I do know that amongst atheists peers that Macro evolution is NOT a Truth. I have no prob w/ micro evo. Also, Abiogensis- athiests will use to try and prove origins. Where did that material come from? No evidence in that either.
cottoncandicane 2 years ago
Ahhh, come on, Candy. You just want to be lied to, but softly. But you already know the ID line, so what's your point in searching for "truth"? (Shaping up to be a geometry pun there.)
ID is creationism in a pseudo-scientific, legally whitewashed (well, sort of, before Dover), brilliantly word-smithed sort of way. If that sort of flash and boom appeals, truth doesn't enter into it, nor hard work nor even intelligence. Now, there's a conundrum for you.
puncheex 1 year ago
It would be interesting to see an animation such as this, of a cell getting attacked by a virus.
L00NGB00W 2 years ago
this video is superb. your Creationist lies are what burns .......... but the fire is fading as education pushes you GOD freaks ever into the shrinking gloom of history ......... one day your grandchildren will laugh...........
gozzhawk 2 years ago
i laugh at you.....you must be really stupid to think that such an amazing mechanism was created by 'chance'. Poor you, your life probably sucks.
2artemis2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"you must be really stupid to think that such an amazing mechanism was created by 'chance'."
The funny thing is that no one actually believes that. This "chance" BS is a strawman Theist retards make up.
If you actually knew anything about evolution, you would know that. Clearly, you dont.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago
@2artemis2: Why do you say chance? It's chemistry. It's built by evolution, which has it's random parts but is not at all a random process. If that's what they're telling you, they're wrong.
Note: Name calling is the mark of the wuss. If you have an argument that's worth a damn, you don't need the names and the insults.
Life sometimes sucks, but Sunday mornings are great!
puncheex 1 year ago
Evolution can't happen until there's at least a "simple" (as simple as the cell in this video) organism to mutate. And those first "simple" organisms that would have had to develop by complete chance (yes, complete chance. Your handy mutations don't happen yet) would have to (by chance) create the ridiculously efficient digital coding and information mechanism called DNA that is hundreds of times more efficient than any of today's most advanced computer software. (out of a soup of chemicals)
eaglestudios829 1 year ago
Why do you say they had to develop by chance? There are theories that begin to cover that part of the story, and while not yet as robust as evolution, they are improving, and will with little doubt lead to lab experiments that will show that the mechanisms work. Mutations happen at any point where heredity is passed down, even if it is by budding rather than sex. Mono-cellular life had 3 billion years to work out that efficient code based in DNA. I don't get this efficiency thing you have...
puncheex 1 year ago
...with software; the DNA code is about 70% efficient, the best that can be done if you want to build protein with 22 amino acids and a stop code, and not use something like Huffman variable-length encoding. Software can and does use Huffman encoding and therefore can do the same task with 100% efficiency.
puncheex 1 year ago
"Why do you say they had to develop by chance?"
How else could it happen? By an intelligent designer? There's either a designer, or it happened by accident. It's simple as that. Most scientists do not try to claim that abiogensis didn't happen by chance, because they know it would have to. And more and more scientists are looking at the complex digital information in the DNA molecule which is REQUIRED for the construction of EVERY STRUCTURE IN THE BODY and scratching their heads.
(cont.)
eaglestudios829 1 year ago
(cont.) For example, William Dembski was a strong supporter of evolutionary theory, and even formed an idea about the origin of life called biochemical predestination. The theory basically was that amino acids could link together to form chains, and then the natural attractions between the different amino acids would curl the chain into a functional protein. Later it was discovered that the information contained in DNA was required to place acids in the specified order. (cont.)
eaglestudios829 1 year ago
@eaglestudios829
It was Professor Dean Kenyon who wrote "Biochemical Predestination" and was driven by the evidence to ID. Have you seen the Google video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"?
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
Oh sorry, you're right. Woops!
eaglestudios829 1 year ago
@eaglestudios829
You were right about all the important stuff. I just know that Darwinists will nitpick on spelling mistakes, minor errors, and problems with the presentation of an argument, rather than address the substance.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr
Yes, they do. I appreciate the correction!
eaglestudios829 1 year ago
@eaglestudios829
You might want to search for the following:
"Revealing the mystery of the bacterial flagellum"
and
"An Imaginary Tour of a Biological Computer"
The first is the website of Professor Keiichi NAMBA who is incharge of a project to reverse engineer the flagellum. There's a fantastic video called "VIDEO: A Rotary NanoMachine", in which Proff Namba explains as an aside, how inferior our own supercomputing is to that of the cell.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@eaglestudios829
We need to forgive the Professor for adding references to "nature" and to "Darwinian evolution", as an rhetorical spin. He does have a job to hold onto!
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
cont. (3) If ONE amino acid was in the wrong position in chains of sometimes hundreds of amino acids, the protein would be utterly nonfunctional. The incredible odds against the BASIC building blocks of life to form themselves without any intelligent intervention, are so incredibly low.
I'd also be interested to hear where you got the information regarding our software being more efficient than DNA. I DO know that one microscopic molecule of DNA holds enough information to fill 600 books.
eaglestudios829 1 year ago
It's ridiculous beyond words to 'think' that the cell came about by 'chance' mutations - do evolutionists have ANYTHING in between their ears(?!)
yastunt 2 years ago
The Problem with that line of questioning yastunt, is the assumption that all this stuff just *SNAP* evolved instantaneously.
That's not how evolution works. The structures in the cell grew gradually in complexity and efficiency, just in the same way that creatures on the macro scale change to become more efficient in their environment.
You could take many structures out of the cell, and it would still live, and indeed there are much simpler forms of cells than this. Bacteria for instance.
L00NGB00W 2 years ago
@L00NGB00W I dont make the assumption of 'snap' evolution - the fossil record just doesnt show a gradual change in complexity - rather there are 'leaps and bounds' in complexity. .in other words the intermediate stages of cells arent in the fossil record. And of course evolutionists assume there was no worldwide flood. A worldwide flood has the qualities needed to 'sort' the fossil record into the way we see it today.
yastunt 2 years ago
Agreed, there are leaps and bounds made.
One explanation is that the cretatious period indicated the emergence of a new method to read DNA. The Control Genes.
(I don't know the official term.)
Rather than read DNA explicitly. Creatures at this point began to change the way in which they read DNA. Where one gene has the ability to multiply or negate a a certain genetic trait of another gene.
This accounts in part for the cretatious explosion.
L00NGB00W 2 years ago
ProfSamuel - "Natural selection cannot work when there is no brain (thought), correct?" - This statement only proves that you have no understanding of evolutionists' arguments. I don't even know what part of your ignorance to discuss first... First of all development is not guided by the brain. The brain controls (to an extent) an organism once they have developed. Development, in the simplest terms, is driven by gene expression and morphogens. I can only hope you are trolling...
camillacowboy 2 years ago
Oh dear. Look at this dirty smelly skeleton that I've just found in the Darwinian cupboard. It seems to be called the "Cambrian explosion".
Oh nooooo. There's ANOTHER one. It's called the cell. Please don't post any more animations like this. Give the atheist a fighting chance.
IDtaksovr 2 years ago
Have you seen the video of the human heart first jump-starting from a singe cell all on it's own? Wonder where the evolution goobers are on that one. And that is before the brain is ever developed. Natural selection cannot work when there is no brain (thought), correct?
youtube (dot com) /watch?v=QMeMAv_v-xs
ProfSamuel 2 years ago
@ProfSamuel
Amazing video, but with all due respect, I would never underestimate the ability of Darwinists to concoct a just-so account of how this or that function evolved.
Their vivid imaginations allow them to speculate endlessly, while avoiding contact with the facts. Since Darwinist "know" that life evolved via undirected processes, they feel obliged to offer possible naturalistic explanations that (retrospectively) accomadate the evidence
BTW. See my vids of the workings of the cell
IDtaksovr 2 years ago
Well stated. Keep in mind our duty is to help educate even them. They may burn us, spit on us and attempt to throw us out. But we are still here. I am sure they would have ran away a log time ago if we did to them what they do to us. I think that spark is what gets some of them thinking if God really is there. For me I just want the truth and a good educated debate. But they do not want that, they lie and hide. Why? Is the truth so painful for them?
ProfSamuel 2 years ago
The general angst expressed by Darwinists is a sign that some deeply held worldviews are being challenged, and that they don't have an intellectual response. Amazingly, this reaction has come down from the LEADERS of materialistic science to their hardcore atheist groupies.
Few of the fundamentalist Darwinists are ever persuaded by reasoned argument. However, my main targets are the undecided, the truth seekers, the open minded and those intimidated by the elaborate Darwinian facade.
IDtaksovr 2 years ago
Bildiğiniz üzere organellerin kendine ait akılları ya da öznel hareket kabiliyetleri yoktur. Peki bunca olayı hatasız ve bu denli detaylı olarak nasıl oluyor da gerçekleştirebiliyorlar? Bu soruya ancak ve ancak Allah'ın sistematiğidir demekten başka çaremiz kalmıyor.
emr3131 2 years ago
this video prooves there iz a god shyt like this cant happen by a chance of ramndom processes did u c how it looked like it had a code system sum kind ov language were everything in the cell looked like it had a job
Swick50187 2 years ago
No, this just proves that we dont understand it. Blaming all unknowns on magic/god shouldnt be typical 21th century.
Yes, a 4x4 jeep probably looks miraculous to f.ex a native isolated indian, and especially how it was created. But we know better.
olemann77 2 years ago
u and i can both tell that the cell has a code system how would it make its own intellegence please explain to me im curious the cell is fasinating
Swick50187 2 years ago
I cant explain it, but that doesnt mean that i blame God for it.
Water flowing down a river aint considered as "intelligent water", it follows rules and physics. The same can be said about substances and their reactions. Intelligence is hard to define, because time and scale distorts the picture.
olemann77 2 years ago
so it can go both ways. i cant proove u wrong. because its tru theres alot of things we do not know. i just dont wanna rule out the possability that there can b a god so i keep an opend mind to both ways of thinking. u no wat i mean.
Swick50187 2 years ago
@olemann77
What's the point of your "intelligent water" analogy? How does it relate to complexity of cell?
mechael 1 year ago
@Swick50187 i think you should shutup and stop commenting on this video. you wouldnt like it if i was going on videos of god and genesis and saying science has proven this and that.
davothebum2201 1 year ago
@Swick50187 and by the way the code system is passed down, from one cell to another, to another, to another, to a sperm and an egg, which form life and cells, which pass it on and on and on
davothebum2201 1 year ago
@olemann77 LOL, it would be magic if it happened with out an intelligent creator!
Howie47 2 years ago
@olemann77
I do not think ANYONE of any intelligence could look at a jeep, and think it just evolved by random chance. A simple cell is FAR more complex than a 757, unlike a simple 4x4 jeep.
southernreign1 1 year ago
@olemann77
A native Indian who saw the jeep and believed there’s somebody more intelligent out there designed the car isn’t 21st century.
Seeing the complexity of cell which clearly requires immense intelligence and yet blindly believing in and blaming it all to chance is 21st century?
mechael 1 year ago
@mechael The complexity of the cell points directly to evolution. What superintelligent, omnipotent almighty, deity would make the building bloc of life so complex. when being almighty he could have made it very simple.
tallliza 1 year ago
@olemann77, Well, the jeep took a designer. It is quite obvious that these tiny things could not do their jobs unless they had a designer. Motion had to have an impetus. The DNA are coded with instructions. From where did they get these instructions? 777denny
777denny1 11 months ago
@olemann77
bullshit. because a 4x4 jeep or ANY thing in this world is miraculous. and Indians are from India.
Rao665 11 months ago
@olemann77 - what would be miraculous is if the 4x4 was constructed by random molecular collisions over hundreds of billions of years. That seems to explain life, but if I told you that random molecular collisions formed a hula hoop, you'd tell me I was crazy. When you think about it, calling upon hundreds of billions of years and hundreds of trillions of molecular collisions to support your theory, indicates the slim odds of your theory being correct.
bammbamm12 10 months ago
@Swick50187 God created the Universe. The Sun is predicted to explode, killing all life of Earth and destroy our solar system. And the Andromeda galaxy is also predicted to collide with our galaxy.
God did a pretty shitty job with planning right?
00RM7 1 year ago
@Swick50187 It took trillions of varying circumstances before it worked this way. Evolution is just something matter does given enough attempts and time, and under the correct conditions.
Cuoin 1 year ago
@Cuoin
There is not enough time, since the beginning of universe, for anything by trial and error to put together something so complicated, even if it could "attempt" 100 billion times per microsecond.
It is against law of probability.
It require so much faith to believe the cell is randomly created by chance. It is like someone winning the lottery 10000000 times in a row.
mechael 1 year ago
@Swick50187 evolution is also a possibility. (not that i dont beleave in God) Through evolution we could evolved from chickens! (chickens came from monkeys!!
racin9 1 year ago
@racin9 chickens came from monkeys? lol idk about that but the chicken obviously came b4 the egg
Swick50187 1 year ago
wooohooo... midterms!
MrScoobiePantz1 2 years ago
Hee, love the music ^^
PieceOfPie14 2 years ago
actually the DNA is not found in this condition like in this vid...oh boy, if u would know how extremely complicated the DNA is packed and formed
unbelievable
Serpico261 2 years ago
it looks like some wild outer space factor..
clnmyjts 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where can I find the full video?
HiRUnknown 2 years ago
This is the major question; if natural selection is truly unguided by any "supreme being" and is therefore a blind and deaf force, why should it care what helps an organism develop? If this intricate piece of machinery called the cell is truly nothing more than protoplasm struck by lightning, then why does nature help this mistake continue?
the only way nature would work to "help" anything evolve is if it were a personal force. How can unguided matter accomplish this?
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
@Kodiaksaint
Natural selection doesn't care. It's an algorithmic process. If you have a population of entities that can reproduce, have heritability, mutation, and selection pressure, you get evolution. If a mutation occurs that is beneficial, it and its offspring are more likely to survive. If the mutation is deleterious, it probably won't survive long enough to reproduce. If it does survive, its offspring will inherit the handicap. They also have the risk of dying before reproducing. Simple.
julianalmasude 2 years ago
An excellent point, julian. You're right- nature doesn't care. So then why do cells evolve at all? Is there some kind of radiation? Are the cells aware that the organism they make up is dying, and so say "Hey, we need to evolve!" and start evolving? (that last one wasn't serious). Let's say evolution did in fact explain it. Let's say evolution was a logical way of telling how the cell came about the way it was. Okay, fine. But it doesn't explain why they started evolving in the first place.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
@Kodiaksaint
You just asked the exact question that I answered. Let me break it down for you... All B-DNA based organisms have flawed reproduction systems, which occasionally make "mistakes". These mistakes are called mutations. Mutations are quite random, and can affect the attributes of the next generation of organisms. Each organism usually has a unique set of mutations. If a mutation benefits the organism, it has a better chance of surviving. Its offspring will inherit the mutation. CONTD1>
julianalmasude 2 years ago
CONTD1> If, on the other hand, the mutation is harmful, then the organism has a reduced chance of surviving. If, out of luck, it does survive anyway, then its offspring will probably inherit the problem, and they also will have a reduced chance of survival. The line of descent will almost surly eventually be selected out because of the flaw, and possibly because of failed attempts at competition with lines of descent that have advantageous mutations. CONTD2>
julianalmasude 2 years ago
CONTD2> So, evolution doesn't work on individuals as you erroneously thought. It works on populations. Now, I agree that evolution doesn't explain where life came from. It's not supposed to. That's outside of the theory of evolution's "jurisdiction", if you will. You wouldn't claim that the theory of gravity must be wrong because it doesn't explain where the universe came from. Gravity explains why things fall and orbit. Similarly, evolution explains the diversity and complexity of life. CONTD3>
julianalmasude 2 years ago
CONTD3> The most credible scientific hypothesis explaining the origin of life is currently abiogenesis. Directed panspermia is also a potential explanation, however, occam's razor demands that we go with the simplest explanation in the absence of evidence. We have a general idea of what Earth was like in the Hadean and Archean Eons, but we lack the data to determine the specifics. I don't have enough time to go over this at the moment. I recommend watching cdk007's video at /watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg.
julianalmasude 2 years ago
I understand the overall theory, but thank you for the recap. Here's the problem- it sounds fine in theory. However, in reality there has yet to be seen any progression of mutation which has proven to be beneficial to the organism or its offspring, either in nature or in a lab. Therefore the theory of evolution is just that- a theory, and one with enough holes to cause many scientists to start doubting its ability to explain life.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
@Kodiaksaint
"...there has yet to be seen any progression of mutation..."
That statement is false. There have been many cases, some observed naturally and most under laboratory conditions. Viruses and bacteria reproduce so quickly that they evolve at an easily observed rate. But they aren't the only ones, we've seen speciation among multicellular organisms, such as various species of Drosophila, Nereis acuminata, Tragopogon, and Tribolium castaneum, just to name a few.
julianalmasude 2 years ago
@julianalmasude but is there any evidence of an animal changing into a completly different speceis?
Swick50187 2 years ago
@Swick50187
Yes. We have fossil evidence that strongly suggests that life is a self-replicating divergent pattern, which will slowly mutate into entirely new species, given enough time. Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, Darwinius masillae, and Archaeopteryx are some famous examples. We also have records of speciation under rigorous laboratory conditions. Go to google and look up "observed instances of speciation". There's my evidence. Now, show me the evidence for your alleged creator, or GTFO.
julianalmasude 2 years ago
Are you talking about that pre-historic alligator evolutionist are in a uproar about? I went to PA and saw it first hand, there is not even enough bones to even tell what it is. What about the human & dinosaur footprints in Texas? Evidence in Barry Fell book America BC? China visiting America in 1424? First human heart beat before the brain or any other organ is developed? I was taught this evolution junk when I was young then I researched the truth and found evolution is a big fat liar!
ProfSamuel 2 years ago
And what about the evidence discovered after the famous Monkey Trials? Was only a hog jaw!!! But the courts refused to allow the new evidence back in, since the dumb ruling was already made. Or even the big one about the horse linage, was admitted to being made-up! Yet evolutionist still present that junk today, knowing it was a lie! I am open to anything if there is true facts. Not some drawing, not some bits of bone, but hard core. On a scale of 1 to 10, the creationist are in the lead.
ProfSamuel 2 years ago
Check out this other video:
youtube (dot com) /watch?v=o7qN9KspjG8
ProfSamuel 2 years ago
@ProfSamuel
None of the specimens I mentioned were alligators. As far as I know, nothing that has been discovered recently fits your description in the slightest. The paluxy river footprints have failed to endure scientific scrutiny. They are extremely ambiguously formed due to erosion, and neither of the pairs of tracks can be said to resemble human feet without the utilization of selective highlighting. They lack cogency.
julianalmasude 2 years ago
@Kodiaksain
"the theory of evolution is just that- a theory"
Asserting that evolution is JUST a theory is akin to making such an assertion for gravity, or germ theory. Are you intentionally trying to deceive people by confusing the scientific and colloquial definitions of the term "theory"? In science, a theory is an explanation for natural phenomenon(s) which has survived a large amount of scientific scrutiny. Prior to such scrutiny, the explanation is referred to as a "hypothesis".
julianalmasude 2 years ago
1. I'm not talking about viruses (which aren't even living things). I'm talking about infinitely more complex organisms, like, say, a fruit fly.
2. Evolution has stood up to large amount of scientific scrutiny? My friend, anyone honestly searching for truth who puts the stick of evolution next to the ruler of science will find it horridly crooked. There has, in fact, been little to no evidence which exclusively applies to evolution, and plenty which blows holes into it.
Kodiaksaint 2 years ago
Here is your answer: pure luck
eresimbecil92 2 years ago
haha. arguing about the existence of God. Basically one guy says there is life without purpose, and the other guy doesn't agree
adam121886 2 years ago
IIf this can happen by accident than the space shuttle can too.
levonet33 2 years ago
Hear, hear.
Or rather ...
... read, read!
Magicienne2005 2 years ago
Either the universe made itself or God made the universe. Just don't tell me you believe in eternity. Do you have a third solution of the question?
levonet33 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but I do not understand your question.
Certainly I believe in a God who is outside of time, and I believe in a life in Him that never ends, ever.
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Magicienne2005 2 years ago
What is the name of the song in the barreld shaped machine by the end at the movie? ,
Arnelaser 2 years ago
If you can read this, I can prove God exists.
The Atheist's Riddle: Skeptics Attempt To Solve It.The most famous, passionately argued, longest running debate has been successfully advanced at Infidels,the worlds largest Atheist forum. Information Theory and DNA deal a crushing blow to Atheism,because the laws of physics and chemistry do not account for the existence of information.Verify for yourself the information in DNA is evidence of design in living things.
CosmicfingerprintsDOTcom
nvutube7 2 years ago
nvutube7 - you fail at science. Try reading a book which isn't full of fairy tales for once. or try sourcing your information about science from people who actually take the time to understand science. In fact why don't you go and get a dictionary and look up 'science' because you might be surprised at what it really is.
hadr0n 2 years ago
hadr0n, Ad-hominem retorts will not suffice. I cannot do your homework for you. The website I offered is for those who care enough to investigate for themselves. Its not for those who simply want to argue. Im not here to argue or debate. If your satisfied with the conclusions you have come to, thats your choice. Good luck when it's your turn to go through the valley of the shadow of death.
nvutube7 2 years ago
No. You are simply here to poison the waters of objective reality by spreading disinformation and propaganda about subjects YOU don't care to learn about because they disagree with your dogmatic religious world-view.
hadr0n 2 years ago
Not quite. Science currently has no materialistic explanation for coded information that directs the chemistry of life. Do you?
nvutube7 2 years ago
All programing that humans have ever observed, 100% of the time has been the product of mental processes. We have zero evidence for some other cause for codes. The inference is clear, the programing in DNA was designed. If you disagree, show us a program that didn't come from mental processes.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Of course the naturalist is free to wait for some as of yet unknown process that can procuce coded information. But he does so in the face of zero evidence while at the same time in the face of 100% of human observation that coded information only comes by mental processes. Minds are the only KNOWN cause to date that creates coded information. Sorry, thats just reality. Use all the faith you need to wait for some other cause if you wish. But for now, there is only one available option. Mind.
nvutube7 2 years ago
It's called evolution, and physics, and chemistry, and biology, more specifically cell biology which you wish to speak about with some kind of authority. Your cut-and-paste concept of 'coded-information' belies your wilful ignorance of pretty much all fields of academia except theology.
I pity you. As more and more of the gaps where you could stick your god close you become more and more ignorant and dishonest.
What would Jesus do?
hadr0n 2 years ago
The *operation* of biological processes is explainable by purely natural processes, but the *origin* of codes is not. The problem in the origin of life that science is unable to solve is to explain how information began to govern chemical reactions through the means of a code.Your hard drive is chemistry too, just a big magnet with silicon and copper and plastic.Reading and writing are mechanical processes.But that falls short of explaining the data that is stored on your hard drive,doesnt it?
nvutube7 2 years ago
The God of the gaps type arguments placed God where there was no known cause for the observed effect. The tables have turned on the materialist now. They are the ones reaching for time and chance of the gaps to provide a unknown cause for codes. It is the theist who now has a currently known acting cause for codes, MINDS.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Your reasoning is breif and circular. The source of your 'codes' is clear and supported by a mountain of evidence. It is, as I eluded to earlier, evolutionary biology and the supporting fields of study. It is your clear lack of understanding of the scientific method combinded with your fringe religious prejudices that preclude your bafflingly flawed argument that because you don't understand or accept science that god exists. On all counts a logical non-sequitur. Good night.
hadr0n 2 years ago
>>The source of your 'codes' is clear and supported by a mountain of evidence.
Quite false. People can declare all kinds of abiogenesis explanations to be plausible, but the fact is, none of those experiments are successful and none explains the origin of the genetic code itself. Given the complete absence of any empirical support for a naturalistic cause of the genetic code, it requires assumptions that are empirically unsubstantiated and thus fails to qualify as a scientific statement.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Im fine with anyone who wants to hypothesize DNA occurred naturally, so long as theyll come clean about the fact that
1) to explain the origin of DNA one must therefore account for the origin of coded information, and
2) there is no observed process of naturally occurring code, and
3) because no observation of (2) has been made, a scientific theory for the origin of this information is not currently possible.
You do not have empirical evidence for the origin of the genetic code.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Cutting and pasting from creationist websites with an updated version of the watchmaker argument (which was thourougly debunked even before Darwin was born shows your fear and lack of understanding of science.
Science is not an authority. It is a method of enquiry that requires that ideas are updated and changed in the face of evidence. It is the very antithesis of faith!
The only way you can use the argument that 'codes' can only be created be mental processes is if you deny the evidence.
hadr0n 2 years ago
I noticed you offer not a single piece of evidence of how information came to direct the processes of chemicals through the means of a code. And quite understandably so, there is none at this time. But in your attempt to offer any, make sure to make the distinction between an "explanation" and actual empirical evidence. To date, intelligence is the only known acting cause that produces codes, software and programing.Science has only one rational inference that is based on evidence, intelligence.
nvutube7 2 years ago
google 'Nylon-eating flavobacterium' and 'Bacterial conjugation' if you want to see some of the evidence showing how new information is added through observed unguided evolution. Or do you think that bacteria have brains? More likely you think that there is a big conspiracy in science when the reality is that you'll very rarely find two scientists who agree an pretty much anything.
hadr0n 2 years ago
The evolution of codes does not explain the origin of codes. Algorithms produce more algorithms (information), but that does not explain the original code in the first place.
Derivatives from DNA, the mother code, do not count as examples of codes arising without intelligence. Show us an example of a code that arises without intelligence.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Your gaps are getting smaller and smaller! :)
We couldn't posibly know everything about everything otherwise there would be no point in science but you can't just fill the gaps with smaller and smaller gods.
It might just blow your hippy noodle to know that self-replicating RNA has been recently produced in a lab. But of course if you actually followed the science you claim to be such an authority on you would already know that.
hadr0n 2 years ago
Same problem remains for RNA it is a derivative of DNA, the original code. You need to find a code that occurs without intelligence, outside the realm of life.
Learn biology? Biology is not the problem, the problem is the materialistic idealogy that is applied to biology. Looking for the origin of the genetic code in chemistry is like looking for the origin of literature in the chemistry of ink. DNA has coded information, which cannot be reduced to chemistry anymore than literature can.
nvutube7 2 years ago
You can put you faith in science all you want. But I hate to break it to you, science has NO explaination for how information came to direct the processes of chemicals through the means of a code. Thats just the facts. We have only one known acting cause for codes at this time, mental processes. We have only one cause we can rationally make inference to, mental processes can produce codes. Nothing else we know of can. Unless you know of a cause besides intelligence that can make codes?
nvutube7 2 years ago
Intelligence is the only available option we have to choose from at this time. The only cause we KNOW can create codes. One is free to wait for some as of yet unknown way for codes to be made, but he does so in the absence of any evidence for it. We all use faith hadr0n, I just admit my faith, will you?
nvutube7 2 years ago
If you want to learn biology speak to biologists, not computer scientists, philosophers, lawyers and christian apologists.
hadr0n 2 years ago
If trying to explain the past, one shouldnt invent exotic causes of the sort we have NEVER seen in operation, but rather we should invoke causes that are KNOWN to produce the effects in question. Lyels way of saying this, is we should be looking for PRESENTLY acting causes. So the question is, what is the PRESENTLY acting cause of digital code? We know of ONLY one, intelligence! So I am not arguing from ignorance but from my knowledge of causes and effects!
nvutube7 2 years ago
The tables have turned. It is the naturalist who is now reaching for straws (arguing from ignorance) in the attemp of explaining how digital codes can arise without intelligent causation. 100% of human observation empirically shows us minds can produce codes. We have ZERO% evidence they can be the product of anything else. For now, the only rational, logical inference that can be made that is based on the scientific method of induction is design. It is the only "available" alternative we have.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Of course you are free to exersice your own personal faith, that there may be some undiscovered law of chemistry and physics that produces coded information, but you do so with the absence of any evidence. Thats your choice.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Software, instructions, programing and coded information, which is a crucial ingredient to all life, has blindsided all naturalistic interpretations of biology.
Immaterial coded information has to be accounted for in life. Literature cannot be accounted for by examining the chemistry of paper and ink. Literature has a completely different source.
nvutube7 2 years ago
What's your point? You're just backpedaling. Software, instructions, programming and coded inormations are the tools which are used in the naturalistic interpretetion of biology. not its cause.
LIterature is information created by man. A typically rehearsed and childish argument. We don't know the source of intelligence but it dosen't entirely come from our genome it seems as humans have only a fraction of the 'coded information' in their DNA as that of the lowly Amoeba!
hadr0n 2 years ago
The point is, at the heart of all life there is coded information, software, programming etc. Where did it come from?The laws of chemistry can not account for coded information,instructions and the software.
1) DNA contains coded information
2) All coded information we know the origin of came from intelligence
3)Therefore we have 100% inference to design in DNA.
If you disagree,show us an example of codes and software etc., that didn't come from a mind. All you need is one.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Your 'coded information' is an arrogant projection of the concepts that you understand onto those which you clearly do not!
Your logic is circular and flawed. point 2 is wrong. You just believe it to be right because it fits your religious paradigm and wish to deny all evidence to the contrary therefore your cut-and-pastse ID appologetics website conclusion is bullshit and has be thouroughly trashed by many scientists, philosophers and others both here on youtube and in the halls of academia.
hadr0n 2 years ago
*point 2 is wrong*
Give us an example of coded information tha did not come from a mind then.
Codes are communication between an encoder "writer" and a decoder "reader" using agreed upon symbols.
nvutube7 2 years ago
DNA
hadr0n 2 years ago
That would be circular reasoning. The coded information contained in DNA is the very coded information in question. Is it or is it not the product of intelligence? That is the question, therefore it can't be used as an example of coded information that did not come from intelligence.
nvutube7 2 years ago
Coded information so far, has only one sufficient cause available, that we know of, intelligence.
nvutube7 2 years ago
That's not even a hypothesis and goes no way to trying to understand anything. It's sheer smoke-and -mirrors anti-science rhetoric.
hadr0n 2 years ago
Its in inference based on the scientific method of induction.Most scientific laws are based on inference of observations of the past.Science infers the speed of light is constant based on 100% of observations of the past behavior of light. Can we deductively prove it is constant?Nope.We can only infer.The same applies to coded information.Based on 100% of human observation, codes ONLY come by minds.There are no other causes we know of.You are free to wait for some unknown cause to be discovered.
nvutube7 2 years ago